Absolute Certainty by the Spirit: Canonicity
March 23, 2024 1:39 PM
Lloyd Immanuel Acree
This message was originally published to 444prophecynews.com on March 3, 2024 and I felt convicted by the way I addressed some personal frustrations in it. So please accept my apologies and this edited version of the article.
I. Clarification on the Canon and Canonicity
“Canon…in classical Latin, “measuring line, rule,” from Greek kanon “any straight rod or bar; rule; standard of excellence,” perhaps from kanna “reed” (see cane (n.)). The Latin word was taken in ecclesiastical use for “decree of the Church.” – https://www.etymonline.com/word/canon#etymonline_v_671
I find it necessary to raise the bar on common use of this word “Canon” (which usually refers to the list of books that belong in the Bible), seeing that there are diverse applications and texts of the same Bible book names. Canon must then entail an entire body of sentences or verses, perhaps even down to every letter, so that for example we can distinguish between a modified copy of Daniel from a “perfect” reading of the same Daniel. Now for this article, the list of books will always remain at sixty-six; I am not interested in debating the addition of any texts outside of these: the focus should be on the proper manuscripts of source material for our Bibles. By these the Word is translated into other languages (such as our own) and subsequently new, modernized, and altered versions. The apocrypha are excluded here. When I point to the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) for example, I am referring to the 39 same books found in any protestant Bible, even though this text family is usually published with the apocrypha attached.
So our first conclusion is that the Canon must include compatibility with the Septuagint readings, verse by verse.
II. Version
Here we have the second question now of “how” literal they must be carried over into other “versions”. This also will not be the question answered here. It is not my expertise to lecture anyone on the superiority of “dynamic equivalency” or “literal” methods against one or the other, or anything else beyond these. That is entirely for academics, linguists, and others for a separate topic on objectivity and honest representation. The topic here must remain the canonicity of manuscripts. So I am also not attempting to have lesser Bibles annihilated. By all means we can refrain from heaping this voluminous study onto new Christians, who will be helped sufficiently by their watered-down style (paraphrase) Bibles perhaps, but there must be a process by which we may educate eventually everyone and get better at pointing to the exact form of Scripture.
III. Manuscript (Source Text) Superiority
Manuscript lineage is how we even know what should be in the Bible, starting with the Dead Sea Scrolls and any other similar ancient texts, but never without further painstaking attention to variations and forensic evaluations. Not all ancient Bibles are equal. Not all ancient manuscripts are showing the exact same letters or even sentences.
The original manuscripts hold the key to authority over all the rest of our knowledge of the Bible. The problem: later Bible developers have omitted entire phrases or changed words based on the Masoretic manuscripts instead of and as if by condemnation of the Septuagint, often by mere preference or theory rather than fasting and prophetic utterance. Human academia is not sufficient for this monumental intrusion! Where the Dead Sea Scrolls support a Masoretic lean will be insightful and instructional, yet we have these published in English, and they are both incomplete (sometimes found only in meager scraps like confetti) and insufficient. The opposite is true: the Septuagint was never discredited, never obliterated by desiccation, predates the Masoretic Hebrew in archeological finds by several centuries at a minimum, and should never receive Masoretic-biased criticism. Moreover, the Septuagint was the Bible of pre-Christian Jews all throughout the Greek speaking Hellenized world, and is also the Bible of the first churches. It was never unauthorized, or objected to, by Jews until after Christ.
Our primary source manuscript for the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek Old Testament) will be Codex Vaticanus dated to the fourth century A.D. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint).
IV. Method
As I have already mentioned, this is an opportunity for the churches to cultivate community confirmations with fasting and prayer as to lean on the Holy Spirit rather than human wisdom. Paul even forbids the use of human debates to settle church conflicts in 1 Corinthians chapters 1-3.
The answers are in but I want to see what other churches receive by the Spirit. I did not launch this investigation by my own initiative and I did not find the answers without the Spirit showing me. Namely, I was not sharp enough to even consider Aramaic Scriptures. That was given to me by the Lord after I discovered that even my copy of the Byzantine Greek Text Form (New Testament) also had scribal errors.
Conclusion:
If the church is to examine the Scriptures carefully, this cannot and no longer should be done without a copy of the Aramaic New Testament (27 books) as sourced by Victor Alexander and the Septuagint (39 books) from Codex Vaticanus. Though the Victor Alexander English translation may be difficult as there has been no evolution of polish on the word choice or even spelling in some areas, nonetheless we will find that his manuscript base outshines the rest. Aramaic after all was the natural first language of the apostles, perhaps even without exception. The heritage of these texts was not done first in “second language”-style Greek as forced on their authors. But further, it is specifically that Victor Alexander’s text has been approved by the Spirit multiple times to myself and others in the church. Don’t take my word for it though. Fast. Ask, Seek, and Knock. The same could also be said with the Greek Septuagint (39-book) Old Testament. Everything is verified as canonical not only in content superiority to the Masoretic text (most of the Bibles that Americans read) but also in heritage superiority to the Masoretic text. It’s true that some Dead Sea Scroll-material supports some of the Masoretic content. But it is backwards to supplant the Septuagint with Masoretic material. The official view of all churches on the Old Testament content down to every last phrase should be as follows: trust the Septuagint first, and use the Masoretic to add further insight where needed or if appropriate.
Christ warned us that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. I have warned that there are significant content errors in the Masoretic Old Testament and even in the various Greek-based New Testament texts, which can and should be cross checked by Victor Alexander’s Aramaic source(s). Even further, I have found that basic Bible study of these recommended and more ancient source texts confirms that this is truly a thing of the Lord. There will be tables showing all of these differences in due time as the Lord allows. But let it suffice for today that I simply mention one case: in the Masoretic book of Joshua, he Joshua violates the Torah by having Achan’s whole family executed; yet in the LXX only Achan is killed for his sin as prescribed in Deuteronomy 24:16. This is just one example.
Allow me to finish with one simple illustration: if you my reader were rushing out of Sodom or from Mt Vesuvius before a cataclysmic explosion, and you could only take one “Bible” with you, would it be the Canon? Or just somebody’s secondhand “version”?
I hope it would be the Canon.
God bless,
Lloyd Immanuel Acree
Photos courtesy Depositphotos
